fow_semantic

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-readonly/non-idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is already carried. The description goes beyond them with per-route effects (prepare persists a prompt/authority snapshot, submit validates, adopt records declared provenance, execute_internal invokes inference) and a server-side file-read note, which is genuinely additive context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Structure is front-loaded: a one-line purpose sentence, then routing, prerequisites, effects, and a help pointer, each earning its place. For a six-route multiplexer it is dense but not wasteful; the trailing capabilities-help pointer is functional rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers routing, prerequisites, per-route effects, and unsupported cases. Given the six-operation complexity it is largely complete, though it leaves the actual per-route field requirements to the referenced fow_capabilities help rather than stating them inline.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents roles, execution modes, source path containment, and receipt/idempotency semantics at param level. The description adds little param-specific meaning beyond repeating the operation routes, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states concrete verbs and resources across the multiplexed operations (prepare bounded semantic assignments, validate submitted results, adopt audit evidence) and names the two supported roles. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fow_validate_srs or fow_ground_intent, whose names overlap with the roles it claims.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit prerequisite sequence ('Use inventory, then prepare a supported role in host or internal mode; internal needs configured inference') and routes via the operation selector, plus an explicit exclusion ('Observed-behavior drafting is unsupported'). It stops short of telling the agent when to choose this tool over a sibling, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.